Author Topic: I don't get YEC.  (Read 25199 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11887
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #464 on: September 11, 2013, 09:54:18 PM »
Quote
I am curious about one thing you said in your last reply: "Also, dogs descended from wolves." Can you elaborate on that?

I believe it has been shown conclusively, both through historical data and genomics that this is the case.

What is the YEC timeline for the domestication of the dog?

Well, the flood was probably somewhere around 2500-2300 BC (there's a little ambiguity, I think 2348 is round about right), and anytime after that, dogs could have been domesticated in a short amount of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Although most of the breeds around today, I'm told, didn't show up until the last few hundred years

Non-biased evidence for the flood stated in the Bible of actually happening?

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #465 on: September 11, 2013, 09:57:36 PM »
He's just gonna link to the Discovery Institute, or Answers in Genesis, or something.  And if you claim bias, then "everyone's biased!"  No reasoning with this kind of person.  Reason is heresy.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11887
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #466 on: September 11, 2013, 10:32:32 PM »
He's just gonna link to the Discovery Institute, or Answers in Genesis, or something.  And if you claim bias, then "everyone's biased!"  No reasoning with this kind of person.  Reason is heresy.

It's still fun to ask. ;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #467 on: September 11, 2013, 10:52:35 PM »
Quote
Except that they are not speculative.  For example, the rate of c14 decay (and other kinds of radioactive decay) is no more speculative than the rate of gravitational attraction, so for you to suggest that it is speculative because we don't have all the information about it is akin to suggesting that the universal theory of gravity is speculative because we don't have all the information on it..  It goes the same way for your other assertions - you have no evidence to back them up either.  So holding them up as reasons for why carbon dating isn't reliable is no more believable than asserting that gravity might have worked differently in the past, or might work differently somewhere else in the universe, without providing evidence to show that it was actually the case.

I don't disagree with the rate of decay, as I said. You didn't answer the other points I made about C-14 - Amount of biomass has been constant, amount in atmosphere has been constant. Your example of gravity also isn't very good since universal gravitational attraction is clearly seen in galaxies, etc. You can't compare a change in fundamental physical law to a change in the amount of material on a planet anyway.

You are still just begging the question, and presenting the same arguments, without addressing the fact that the amount of biomass in the past and C-14 in the atmosphere in the past is speculative, and therefore radiometric dating beyond a certain point is speculative, and does not belong to science.

Quote
Now, it is true that they are assumptions, after a fashion.  But they are assumptions based on the fact that we've never seen them fluctuate, and we don't have any scientific evidence (observational, experimental, or historical) that shows that they ever have in the past either.  So it isn't reasonable to conclude that despite this, they might have fluctuated anyway, and thus we can't rely on carbon dating.  If someone comes up with solid evidence to show that they have fluctuated in the past, it'll be different, but until then, trying to dismiss carbon dating (and other branches of science that contradict the Biblical narrative) based on "well, things might have been different" isn't going to fly.

Biomass and atmosphere have both been non-existent in the past, according to anyone. The question really is, when was that? Either way it has changed.

The earths magnetic field was greater in the past, according to non-speculative science. This would cause a decrease in the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

Quote
Bristlecone pine rings are much more reliable.  First off, they almost never produce extra rings, and while they do have missing rings, the ring patterns of different trees can be measured and correlated with each other due to the rainfall patterns of the Southwest.  In any case, missing rings would result in younger ages for tree ring counts.  There's also the fact that scientists have worked out the tree ring sequences for other species of trees, such as the sequoiah (to at least 1250 BCE) and the limber pine (to at least 25 BCE), on top of having worked out the bristlecone pine to at least 6200 BCE.  And those have been correlated with the bristlecone pine - it's not just one species of tree and one sequence of tree rings that we're talking about here.

But here's the far more serious problem you have to consider.  If there was a worldwide flood around 5,000 years ago as the Bible claims, that means all the bristlecone pines would have been younger than that.  Meaning that 8,200 years of tree rings would have had to form in those 5,000 years, requiring 60% of all of those rings to be extra rings.  In a species that almost never has extra rings to begin with.  See the problem?

I do see the problem. I've been letting you get away with ipse dixit, but now it's time to post sources.

Quote
Quote from: ChristianConspirator
You have to be more specific or site sources about c-14 decay fluctuation
I did.  It was in this link (note, this is where I got the info I posted just above).  That also answers your objection about tree rings not always being reliable.

That was also the part where I told you that that was old, as in 1982 like it says at the top. Now we have IRMS

Quote
If they were doing their jobs properly, they would have included it when they published their findings.  Because that's how scientific publication works - you include everything you worked with, no matter how trivial it might seem.  If they didn't include it in their publications, that means they either didn't account for it, messed up somewhere and didn't notice, or they intentionally left it out.

Yes, I know that. I told you to ask because the burden of proof is on you to dispute a scientific paper. Do you have a PhD by chance?

Quote
I heard about that, actually.  But I doubt that the RATE scientists used it, since it's newer than their publications.

I'm sure you have plenty of doubts about the truth, unfortunately.

Quote
No offense, but I doubt that there is such evidence, since it is only creationists - with a vested interest in disproving the science of radioisotopic analysis - who have seemingly found it.  Other scientists who have investigated those things haven't found it.

That's because of the different methods of looking for evidence. Edit: The evolutionists are not looking for whether or not it has happened, because they presuppose it has not.

Quote
You are trying to have this both ways, though.  You are trying to say that the age doesn't matter, because they are still dogs no matter what, but you are also trying to say that the age does matter - since you used the most ancient dog remains anyone has yet found.  If the age doesn't matter, why not use dog remains from a couple of thousand years ago?  The fact is that it wouldn't prove anything, since we know dogs have existed much longer than that.  So you used dog remains that were dated from long before the Biblical flood - indeed, the Biblical creation itself - because they would strengthen your assertion...except that you also want to say that the date doesn't matter, because that demolishes your assertion.  You can't have that both ways.

Age doesn't matter in the dogs part, it does in the earth part. Why are you making this an argument?

Quote
In short, you're claiming that scientists think that other sciences have to be made to fit to evolution, without actually quoting any who do - but at the same time, you're shifting the burden of proof onto me, by demanding that I find scientists who don't think this.

That's because I gave you some that do, such as the obscure fellow Dawkins.

Quote
Rather, they don't now.  And you know why they don't?  Because scientists showed that they were natural phenomenons rather than the actions of a supernatural entity.  So it is not a false analogy.

This is also not a false analogy, for the same reason I gave above.  Just because most modern-day Christians do not now believe it - long after germ theory was introduced and shown to work - does not mean that Christians always thought that way.  Indeed, before germ theory was developed, a lot of Christians believed that they were caused by supernatural influences (either divine or diabolic).  Some Christians still think that today, not just witch doctors.

Not based on doctrine they didn't, which is the point.

Quote
Nothing in science is a "necessary outcome of the scientific method".  The scientific method is just a process for checking ideas against reality.  So trying to claim that it is not necessary is immaterial.  What matters is whether it's falsified by the scientific method, and evolution has not been.

"Reality" as you call it must be shown through the scientific method

Quote
I did read it.  Furthermore, I had a friend who is a biologist and who works with this stuff in his job read it too.  He's the one who made the "genes for eyes suddenly coding for giant fingers" comparison.  Thus, I question whether you actually know what you're talking about here.

Argument from authority? I have to question whether or not you understood what he meant by that anyway. Let him know that there are no fingers or eyes mentioned, because the fingers and eyes of organisms have the same genetic codes. THESE genetic codes are from DIFFERENT organisms which supposedly have the same common ancestor. Let your friend know that he would probably have to be a geneticist to begin to answer this question.

Quote
And you know they had different numbers of chromosomes because...  I'm quite serious here.  As far as I can tell, this is a totally baseless assertion.

It may have something to do with the fact that the different animals they supposedly turned into have different amounts of chromosomes and polyploidy.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

Quote
What you're saying here is virtually the same as saying, "well, just because wolves and dogs have certain similarities, it doesn't mean that they come from a common ancestor".  Except that this is incorrect, as you know.  Your argument here is just as bad - basically that it doesn't matter that they are consistently similar in ways that bridge the divide between genus and family, not just species, because they're different 'kinds' (or as you say, 'types') and couldn't possibly have come from a shared ancestor.  If someone who did not accept speciation came up to you and asserted that there's no way that the various species could ever have been anything but different species, you would probably call him on it - but you are doing essentially the same thing by asserting that it arbitrarily stops once you get past the species level (i.e., species all share common ancestors, but genuses do not, or families do not).

The apparent genetic similarity (despite their evident physical differences) between horses and bats is an exception to the rule (and not the only one, either).  Simply pointing to something like this doesn't actually prove anything, especially when physical similarities are paired with DNA similarities much more often than not.

Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's just evidence! This is my whole point, which you seem to be missing. Both evolution and creation rely on assumptions of their validity, it HAS to be that way, and yet you keep insisting that evolution must be true, regardless of the fact that you've admitted repeatedly that everything that "proves" evolution is based on them.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 11:35:30 PM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11887
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #468 on: September 11, 2013, 11:01:31 PM »
Creationism is based on the OT which is an assumption therefore it's untrue.
Evolution is based on evidence which is an assumption therefore it's untrue.

This is what CC is saying. So, no matter what "we" say, it's all opinion.
No matter what YEC's say, it:s all opinion.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #469 on: September 11, 2013, 11:27:05 PM »
Well, I was thinking you would ask me something like: Why do you believe x fits with YEC? But,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter_Sandstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone
St Peter's sandstone is a formation that is in a large area from Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, and very thick. Sandstone is, obviously, made out of sand.

Quote
The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a stream, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert). Typically, sedimentation occurs by the sand settling out from suspension; i.e., ceasing to be rolled or bounced along the bottom of a body of water or ground surface (e.g., in a desert or erg). Finally, once it has accumulated, the sand becomes sandstone when it is compacted by pressure of overlying deposits and cemented by the precipitation of minerals within the pore spaces between sand grains.

Notice "precipitation of minerals" means that there was water in there upon formation, meaning it is quite likely that this large cohesive amount of sandstone formed at the same time, in an awfully large flood.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6298
  • Darwins +731/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #470 on: September 11, 2013, 11:56:48 PM »
CC

I can't possibly read all of your posts, because I'm already old and I don't have that much time left. But you seem to love complaining about carbon dating, and its alleged problems. Are you ignoring the fact that other dating systems show results consistent with what carbon dating reveals, or would you prefer we not bring up stuff like?

Do you have equally in compelling argument,emits against uranium-lead dating, or potassium-argon dating?  You know, like another sixty-plus posts worth, or would you just prefer we extrapolate your hatred of facts to mean you disbelieve 100% of the stuff that threatens your fragile little religious world.

And I hope that you appreciate that I didn't bring up Samarium-neodymium dating, rubidium-strontium dating, fission track dating, chlorine-36 dating, and especially luminescence dating, because that one is so darned hard to spell. You're welcome.

Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan.  Why would it be localized?  Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana?  A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #471 on: September 12, 2013, 12:00:13 AM »
CC

I can't possibly read all of your posts, because I'm already old and I don't have that much time left. But you seem to love complaining about carbon dating, and its alleged problems. Are you ignoring the fact that other dating systems show results consistent with what carbon dating reveals, or would you prefer we not bring up stuff like?

Do you have equally in compelling argument,emits against uranium-lead dating, or potassium-argon dating?  You know, like another sixty-plus posts worth, or would you just prefer we extrapolate your hatred of facts to mean you disbelieve 100% of the stuff that threatens your fragile little religious world.

And I hope that you appreciate that I didn't bring up Samarium-neodymium dating, rubidium-strontium dating, fission track dating, chlorine-36 dating, and especially luminescence dating, because that one is so darned hard to spell. You're welcome.

Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan.  Why would it be localized?  Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana?  A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.

Did you expect the sandstone to cover the earth? How big exactly is big enough for you? Edit: Obviously many other places have sedimentary rock too, what I used is an example, not a thorough discourse

And yes, there are also good reasons to doubt other dating methods, mostly with similar reasoning as c-14.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 12:07:44 AM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11887
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #472 on: September 12, 2013, 12:14:51 AM »
PP,

He's not making it up, he's using other Creationist ideas as his own.

http://creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm

;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #473 on: September 12, 2013, 12:48:33 AM »
PP,

He's not making it up, he's using other Creationist ideas as his own.

http://creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm

;)

-Nam

Stop using English, you're just using Shakespeare's language as your own

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #474 on: September 12, 2013, 12:53:10 AM »
Anyways it's been fun. I'm going to go listen to my pastor drone on and on about how evil science is, then I'm going to live in a hole where I only talk to fundys who agree with me.

Bye bye now.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11887
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #475 on: September 12, 2013, 12:57:32 AM »
PP,

He's not making it up, he's using other Creationist ideas as his own.

http://creationism.org/topbar/carbon14.htm

;)

-Nam

Stop using English, you're just using Shakespeare's language as your own

How's that even remotely the same? It's not. You're an idiot. See, I don't go to Shakespeare's works and then come here and speak in his words. He didn't create the English language. Modern English was formed in the mid 16th century, during his lifetime but he didn't create it.

You, on the other hand, go to websites or read books that either you've been brainwashed into, indoctrinated into, or just agree with your point-of-view and then come here and spout it off as if they are your ideas.

You try so hard to show you know what you're talking about but you don't. Clearly your replies here show this.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #476 on: September 12, 2013, 02:38:56 AM »
Quote
Bristlecone pine rings are much more reliable.  First off, they almost never produce extra rings, and while they do have missing rings, the ring patterns of different trees can be measured and correlated with each other due to the rainfall patterns of the Southwest.  In any case, missing rings would result in younger ages for tree ring counts.  There's also the fact that scientists have worked out the tree ring sequences for other species of trees, such as the sequoiah (to at least 1250 BCE) and the limber pine (to at least 25 BCE), on top of having worked out the bristlecone pine to at least 6200 BCE.  And those have been correlated with the bristlecone pine - it's not just one species of tree and one sequence of tree rings that we're talking about here.

But here's the far more serious problem you have to consider.  If there was a worldwide flood around 5,000 years ago as the Bible claims, that means all the bristlecone pines would have been younger than that.  Meaning that 8,200 years of tree rings would have had to form in those 5,000 years, requiring 60% of all of those rings to be extra rings.  In a species that almost never has extra rings to begin with.  See the problem?

After researching this a bit I've come to the conclusion that this appears to be a valid argument. An argument against it is possible, but speculative at present, so I concede on this point.

I'm going to take a break from this inter-net for a while, but I'll probably get back on here, eventually.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #477 on: September 12, 2013, 04:17:53 AM »
Well, I was thinking you would ask me something like: Why do you believe x fits with YEC? But,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter_Sandstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone
St Peter's sandstone is a formation that is in a large area from Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, and very thick. Sandstone is, obviously, made out of sand.

Quote
The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a stream, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert). Typically, sedimentation occurs by the sand settling out from suspension; i.e., ceasing to be rolled or bounced along the bottom of a body of water or ground surface (e.g., in a desert or erg). Finally, once it has accumulated, the sand becomes sandstone when it is compacted by pressure of overlying deposits and cemented by the precipitation of minerals within the pore spaces between sand grains.

Notice "precipitation of minerals" means that there was water in there upon formation, meaning it is quite likely that this large cohesive amount of sandstone formed at the same time, in an awfully large flood.

Quick note on this. If the sandstone were formed all at the same time, due to a world wide flood you would expect it to contain fossils of the same species of marine bivalves (and other marine fauna) across the board. 
if you have a mix of species showing differing evolutionary traits then it can not possibly have all been formed at the same time.
Even if you discount evolution as a myth i don't see how you rationally can explain differing species not co-existing in a localised area. I mean come on how did god make sure the brachiopods stayed in what would become South Dakota but didn't stray over to Alaska?
And to be frank, why on earth would he be bothered in keeping the mollusc's separate? Oh yes thats right, he hates shellfish...
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 04:20:15 AM by Mrjason »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #478 on: September 12, 2013, 07:30:29 AM »
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #479 on: September 12, 2013, 07:49:02 AM »
Quote
Is that a real thing or is it a fundie invention, like irreducible complexity or macro-evolution?

Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way.

Yes. It is biased towards rationality and expose irrationality. Thus, it is biased towards accuracy.



An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #480 on: September 12, 2013, 07:55:39 AM »
Quote
Can you give a specific example of this?

Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.

You're getting your good ideas mixed up. Neo-Darwinism, the term , was coined by a friend of Darwin's, indeed because of new findings by Lamarck and stuff. You seem shocked that anyone would try to update scientific information. Something that, in this century, is done daily.

But the punctuated evolution thing, as you tried to explain it, is all wrong. When a biologist says that evolution happened quickly, he isn't talking Internet-fast, he is talking biology-fast.  And so slow we cant observe it? thats cute. Did you make that up ourself or read it in a comic book?

In biological term, a newly evolved species changing trait that shows up in merely 25,000 years is considered lickity split. And indeed such changes can and do leave fossil evidence.

And if it is so slow we can't observe it, then it hasn't happened.

People who feel a need to cram all of reality into 6,000 years have a hard time appreciating the actual timeframe of both the universe and of life. So when they see terms like "punctuated equilibrium" they get all excited and redefine it to mean what they want it to mean instead of what science says it means. And then they try to argue about it.

Wanting everyone else to go along with your pretend reality is asking a bit much.

Edit: spelling errors and clarification

Speciation of the Farro Island house mouse versus the common mouse has occured since the intropuction of scientific method, as it happened in a period within the past 250 years. Speciation of a macroscapic animal has been observed.

So much for even that flimsy excuse of YEC.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #481 on: September 12, 2013, 08:08:09 AM »
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6298
  • Darwins +731/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #482 on: September 12, 2013, 08:59:01 AM »
CC
Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan.  Why would it be localized?  Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana?  A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.

Did you expect the sandstone to cover the earth? How big exactly is big enough for you? Edit: Obviously many other places have sedimentary rock too, what I used is an example, not a thorough discourse

And yes, there are also good reasons to doubt other dating methods, mostly with similar reasoning as c-14.

You don't get to have it both ways. You can't point out that something points to proof for you, and then dismiss it as irrelevant. In one part of that deposit, you can find some of the purest sandstone in the world, while in other parts, not so much. One big flood forming different kinds of sandstone in the same region at the same time?  "sure, why not!" you say, and you suggest it as proof or at least evidence of a flood, then when it is pointed out that, as a localized phenomena it appears to be proof only of a localized geologic event (which is what I implied, though I was busier making fun of you), then you say "Golly gee, that was just an example. And there is other sandstone in the world, so that is more proof. And I feel no need whatsoever to explain the lack of consistency is the worldwide deposits of sandstone after implying that a really big flood formed sandstone, because, you know, my source hasn't made up an excuse yet either so I have to beg off."

So since you've already dismissed this argument, I won't ask questions like how come none of the sandstone around the world, often full of fossils, has no fossils of drowned sinners in it? It seems like all your creation scientists could jump in a mini-van, run out to a sandstone deposit anywhere they choose, and start digging out human corpses so lovingly zapped by your favorite deity. And that would go a long way towards proving once and for all that your favorite bedtime story for kiddies, the near total destruction of the earth, was true.

So while you are inconvenienced by the facts of the matter, you are still demanding that your one minute synopsis of the matter take precedence over the work of scientists who tell us that this particular sandstone formed over 400 million years ago, and it took millions of years to form. And the fact that this particular sandstone contains no large animal fossils whatsoever, and in fact contains very few fossils at all. Compared to many other sandstone deposits. But that's okay, because a large, churning, angry sea, blending the drowned biomass of an entire planet, can still carefully separate materials and drop them where you want.  But then it goes to all that trouble and you dismiss the importance of differing deposits as "just an example".  You aren't very appreciative, are you.

Of course you seemed to imply that you were leaving, but I noticed that you posted again on another thread this morning. Lacking a know-it-all attitude, I can't speak, like you do, with an inconsistent air of superiority, but I do hope that this morning's appearance means that you will respond with poor sarcasm to this post of mine, as you have so often done before.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #483 on: September 12, 2013, 09:28:36 AM »
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?

Heh.  Thing is, it's a granite that rose and started assimilating parts of the sandstone.  But the granite itself is an S-type, which means it's made of melted sediments (and not just sandstone) in the first place.  So where did those sediments come from?  And how exactly did both the sandstone and granite get worn down to this level (it's got a mineralogy that's stable only under at least a couple of kilometers of pressure), in the space of about 4k years?

Nothing about real geology makes sense in a YEC paradigm.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #484 on: September 12, 2013, 09:45:59 AM »
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?

Heh.  Thing is, it's a granite that rose and started assimilating parts of the sandstone.  But the granite itself is an S-type, which means it's made of melted sediments (and not just sandstone) in the first place.  So where did those sediments come from?  And how exactly did both the sandstone and granite get worn down to this level (it's got a mineralogy that's stable only under at least a couple of kilometers of pressure), in the space of about 4k years?

Nothing about real geology makes sense in a YEC paradigm.

I was going to try and write an answer to this but it was becoming more and more ludicrous and I couldn't post it. Sorry.

Even basic geology + maths defies YEC.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #485 on: September 12, 2013, 10:01:37 AM »
We have sandstones intruded by several generations of magmas in Nova Scotia.  I wonder when this supposedly happened, in flood-make-believe-land?

it was a really, REALLY hot flood?

Heh.  Thing is, it's a granite that rose and started assimilating parts of the sandstone.  But the granite itself is an S-type, which means it's made of melted sediments (and not just sandstone) in the first place.  So where did those sediments come from?  And how exactly did both the sandstone and granite get worn down to this level (it's got a mineralogy that's stable only under at least a couple of kilometers of pressure), in the space of about 4k years?

Nothing about real geology makes sense in a YEC paradigm.

I was going to try and write an answer to this but it was becoming more and more ludicrous and I couldn't post it. Sorry.

Even basic geology + maths defies YEC.

The fact of oxbow rivers in the Grand Canyon require long slow erosion, and cannot arise from a global flood requires nothing more sophisticated than a large kiddiepool, a hundred pounds of clay, a bucket, and a garden hose.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #486 on: September 12, 2013, 01:54:11 PM »
CC:  Given that I am not using "ipse dixit" anyway, and I seriously resent your repeated accusations that I am, it's just as well that you're backing off for the time being.  I will say that I appreciate you taking a second look at the bristlecone pine thing, but it isn't just that one thing.  I don't base my statements on "because I say so", which is what ipse dixit is.  I base them off of knowledge I have or that I learn.  I have provided sources about stuff, and I certainly don't expect anyone to accept anything simply because I said it, so I don't really think you have any basis for making that accusation.

Believe me, if you could show (with evidence, in a way that other people could independently confirm without relying on the Biblical narrative) that evolutionary theory were flawed or wrong, I would not mind at all, because that would advance human knowledge.  But so far, the best you've been able to do is cast some doubt on the subject, which doesn't help.  Really, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that you are relying on the Biblical narrative to support your assertions.

Here's the thing.  If the events that the Bible says happened actually happened, then there should be physical evidence to show that they did.  With a global flood, there should be evidence that shows that the entire world was flooded (and not just scattered sandstone deposits - think more like a layer of sandstone across the whole crust of the planet, covered by what built up since).  Meaning, you should be able to use that evidence by itself to show that those events happened, and be able to do so in such a way as to convince skeptics that they did, since that's how scientific methodology works.  It isn't about using ancient religious books to explain the events.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6401
  • Darwins +826/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #487 on: September 12, 2013, 03:27:17 PM »
The "flood really happened" thing is really scary to me.

If there had been a worldwide flood, there would be worldwide geological evidence, and it would be indisputable. The great flood would be the basis of every geology course in the world. Creation folks would not have to pick and choose bits of scientific information (like sea shells on mountain tops) and make them fit a flood narrative. Everything would already fit the flood narrative. Fossils would be jumbled up, with reptiles, mammals and humans all mixed together. There would be a mix of plants and animals instead of distinct species adapted to separate ecosystems. In other words, there would be marsupials like kangaroos everywhere, not just in one tiny region of the planet.

Instead we see fossils laid down in distinct layers, with simpler creatures below the more complex ones. We see dinosaurs well separated from later mammals. We see modern human remains separate from the earlier species of hominids. We see ferns and other early plant fossils below the more complex plants with seeds. We also see that the fossil record matches up with every system of dating.

And we find indigenous and endemic species separated by oceans, islands and mountains. We only find pandas in China, only find chiclids in central African lakes. Many organisms have a very short life span and depend on a social environment where you need far more than a handful to continue the species--bees and ants come to mind.

None of this could possibly be the case if a flood large enough to cover the earth  had happened. Such a catastrophic event would have disrupted all marine, arctic, desert and tropical micro ecosystems. It would have killed most microorganisms, bird life, plant life, insect life and amphibious life. Temperature rise would mean no polar bears or penguins who rely on ice to survive.  The few animals, insects and plants that did somehow survive would die off soon from lack of food, companions, etc.

Any human survivors would have perished in the disease environment created by rotting corpses and vegetation-- if the lack of uncontaminated water and fresh food did not kill them first. There would be no marine life, no animals to hunt or herd, nothing to plant and no soil to plant in. The physics of such an event would also be catastrophic to the weather and geomorphology of the planet.

In other words, such a flood would have rather quickly ended all life on earth. Add the belief that a few people and animals could survive the flood in a gigantic sealed up wooden boat and re-populate the planet, and you have a level of nonsense that is incredible. How anyone in the 21st century can believe such a story is beyond me.  :?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4768
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #488 on: September 12, 2013, 04:08:49 PM »
Probably the idea is that if God could cause the flood in the first place, he could purify the land and waters to make them safe for people, and he could make it possible for a few animals of each type to repopulate the world.

But such an idea isn't scientific, at least not with real evidence to support it.  Most YECists don't seem to care, though.  What matters is what they think happened, not what the evidence backs up, since to many of them, the Biblical narrative is all the evidence they need or want.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6574
  • Darwins +512/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #489 on: September 12, 2013, 04:44:50 PM »

Well, the flood was probably somewhere around 2500-2300 BC (there's a little ambiguity, I think 2348 is round about right),
Is there any reason why, at that time, the Egyptians didn't get wet?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 925
  • Darwins +30/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #490 on: September 12, 2013, 06:42:01 PM »
Anyways it's been fun. I'm going to go listen to my pastor drone on and on about how evil science is, then I'm going to live in a hole where I only talk to fundys who agree with me.

Bye bye now.

  This is closer to the truth than you think.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #491 on: September 13, 2013, 05:31:35 AM »
Anyone else notice the irony that he accuses others of "ipse dixit" and "moving the goalposts" when he's a fundamentalist and an apologist....which meets the definitions of those two things respectively, perfectly?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #492 on: September 16, 2013, 12:26:01 AM »

Fair enough, the math analogy was false, but the one about a history book stands. I was referring to Genesis, which is a history book. The Nicene Creed is what has been agreed on are solid doctrines of faith in the bible. People deny it, of course, but it can be shown in the bible conclusively why they are incorrect.


The claim that Genesis is a history book is indeed quite debatable. Is the Hindu Baghivad Gita a history book? How about the Koran or the Book of Mormon? Even if one was to agree that Genesis was a history book, not all history books are created equal - and like the other alleged "history" books of ancient religion we have significant reason to doubt their claims to the supernatural/miraculous. Since most of these hundreds of ancient religions have creation stories, which one should we believe and why? Further, why not stop being gullible and withhold believing any of them until we investigate? Regarding the Nicene Creed, why would you bring it up? Faith isn't a pathway to truth, nor is it a reliable method for separating fact from fiction. So the analogy falls very short. There is just no sound correlation between questions of science and questions of "faith" - especially since faith is most often fixed and unwavering. It's very starting point is a conclusion, rather than a question as in science. Sure, you can "show me in the bible" why you think someone is incorrect (conclusively? I think not) but that's just begging the question as to the claim you started with regarding scientists having "evolution bias" (which is nonsense).

Quote
I asked you specific questions pertaining to your charge that scientists who disagree with your personal belief about the age of the earth are "cherry picking" and I drew an analogy regarding Christian cherry picking of bible passages. I also asked you a direct question regarding your charge of cherry picking toward those scientists. Was this answer ignoring that question? I can understand if it was but if you're going to accuse scientists of something please provide a link or some specific evidence for that assertion.

Exodus, which is also a history book, says 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them". Verses like that are numerous, of course, and one has to reject them in order to accept evolution. You asking me about my cherry picking is really off the subject. For all you know I may enjoy rape, etc, so you don't have proof that I cherry pick, that would be a whole other conversation.


This is a big red herring. I asked you for specific evidence of scientists "cherry picking" and all you can do is quote the bible? Would you accept such reasoning if a Muslim quoted their "history book" along this same line of reasoning? I smell intellectual dishonesty coming. Btw, it's also true that "one has to reject" lots of other claimed holy "history" books from other religions. But of course, you haven't demonstrated these religious books are "history books" anymore than the other religions have demonstrated their claims to knowledge of ancient history. If you believe the bible, then don't you believe that men often lie in order to get their way? How about lying when writing "history" books which makes claims to the supernatural and miraculous - have men forged such things in history? I'm sorry, the bible is not a "history book" in the manner by which you are implying. By your logic we should accept every religious text as a history book b/c they mention historical places/peoples.


It sounds like you started with your conclusion and are now working backwards.



This charge can go the opposite way. In other words, scientists who want to keep consistent with the view of evolution may indeed do this. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kammerer


Another lazy approach. I'm sorry, I'm going to need you to be more specific in your points - as opposed to just posting some generic Wiki link. What specifically is the point you are trying to make as pertaining to this subject of science and YEC?


Indeed I am. My presupposition is that the bible is correct, although that's not to say that I can't inspect the possibility that it isn't.


I predicted correctly. So you've started with your conclusion (that the bible is "correct" - or rather that your interpretation of the bible is the correct) but why would you do this? Furthermore, it doesn't sound like a pre "supposition". It sounds like a precommitment.


Quote
Second, you have made a charge against scientists with whom you disagree (that "evolution bias" is causing geologists to conclude an old earth, etc).
I have, and it would be similar to the charge that I may be false because of my bias.


Interesting. So now you've both admitted that you started with your conclusion (your interpretation of the bible) and that you are practicing bias when it comes to these subjects. Do you think these are good things to practice when it comes to the pursuit of separating fact from fiction? If a Muslim practiced your kind of thinking would it be very reliable in getting him closer to knowledge of the world? I think you can see the answer is no. So why continue this way? Do you even care whether or not your beliefs are true or are you just looking to be comfortable with what you assumed from the outset?


Quote
My observation was not ad hominem

I've noticed that this can be quite murky to prove. I could proceed now to go on a tangent about how you evolutionists probably soil yourselves when in a real debate with a creationist, but if I did that, could you ultimately show that it was in order to prove you wrong, or that it was merely an observation?


I'm not quite following you here at all. So you'll have to explain better. However, regarding this "you evolutionsts" charge, you haven't asked me what my beliefs were yet. So why assume? Furthermore, plenty of professing Christians accept the evidence for evolution (as I posted earlier). So, this name calling is getting you nowhere - but even if you could show all the evidence for evolution false it still wouldn't get you one bit closer to proving a deity/God or proving your personal theology. AT BEST, you would simply have to admit that you don't know how we go here, and stop there.

Quote
No I'm not leveling attacks at anyone other than you in this discussion. You have made multiple claims/charges against scientists and I've asked for some evidence for these claims (not broad statistical assertions but specifics). Are you just going to avoid the call for evidence to these claims of yours?

Which claims? I told you about Marc Hauser and Paul Kammerer, I'm not sure if there's some number of people you need? If some other claim, be specific.


Nooo, you haven't "told me" about them. All you've done is post a link to Wikipedia without making any further statements. How would you feel if I did this same thing back to you? You need to be specific as to the arguments you are making. Furthermore, showing one or two scientists to be in error/or having done wrong etc won't help you in taking down the whole of a scientific endeavor. You do know that, don't you?

How come you're not doing this with the germ theory of decease, the "theory" of gravity, or the shape of the earth? There is still a Flat Earth Society you know.

Quote
It's just an outgrowth of your presuppositional bias toward Christianity and YEC which is based in your personal interpretation of the bible


The point of mentioning axioms was so that I could show everybody has a bias. You keep mentioning personal interpretation: Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". Christ also had the idea that the earth is not billions of years old, and why should I call myself a Christian if I don't believe him?


That's the problem with your thinking. It's based on an assumption! Instead of admitting you don't know, you just assume. But why? Why do that if you really care whether or not your beliefs are true? You aren't believing "Jesus". You're believing hear-say from an old book that you've read, and been told about. For someone who rejects evolution it doesn't seem that your standard of evidence is that high. The NT wasn't even written by eye-witnesses and it contradicts itself all over the place. But besides that why would you believe it in the first place? Why believe ANY book that makes claims to the supernatural and then base your entire life upon it (including how you interpret scientific data)? It's seems quite hypocritical, since you wouldn't lower your standard of evidence in this way for a fast talking salesman at your door - and lots of other religions practice this same kind of thinking to their peril. So why not stop the big assumption?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 12:36:14 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan